Blog

Northeastern's Research Blog

About iNSolution

Welcome to Northeastern University’s science and research blog. We call it iNSolution because that’s what our faculty and student researchers are in the business of—finding solutions to societal problems while simultaneously contributing to the fundamental knowledge base of their respective fields.

Contact us

We want to hear your ideas and endeavors, your questions, compliments, and complaints. Please feel free to email us at g.stmartin@neu.edu or get in touch the old fashioned way by calling 617.373.5463. Also, don’t forget to comment on the posts! A blog is better when its readers are also part of its voice.

Making Conversation: The cancerous caramel color

Last week Coca Cola and Pepsi announced they would change the pro­cessing method for the mol­e­cule that gives our favorite soft drinks their caramel color, after Cal­i­fornia placed a chem­ical byproduct of the method on its list of known carcinogens.

According to a study com­mis­sioned by the Center for Sci­ence in the Public Interest (CSPI), Coke, diet Coke, Pepsi and diet Pepsi all con­tain high levels of the byproduct, called 4-​​methylimidazole (4-​​MI). Cal­i­fornia per­formed its own study to deter­mine the “no sig­nif­i­cant risk level” of the mol­e­cule, which came out to 16ug/​day. According to the FDA, one would have to drink 1,000 cans of soda a day to reach that level.

I asked Mike Jacobson, the co-​​founder of CSPI, to com­ment on the issue. Here’s what he had to say:

“The FDA used that 1,000-cans-a-day state­ment to ridicule con­cerns about carcinogen-​​contaminated caramel col­oring. Be aware that 30% of the rats got cancer. If, using the FDA number, drinking one can a day would lead to 3 in 10,000 people get­ting cancer, an out­ra­geously high number (I think FDA’s num­bers are wrong, but the point remains).”

Three in 10,000 people? That doesn’t seem out­ra­geously high to me, Mike.

“No, it’s not many people, if it doesn’t bother you to have 10,000 people dying for no reason at all. Of course, the sugars in the drinks are far more harmful.”

So readers, what do you think? Is it right to let people die “for no reason at all,” when there is an alter­na­tive that can pro­duce the com­pound safely, even if soda drinkers know the dan­gers of their behavior?

Or is the caramel color debate irrel­e­vant in an era of rising obe­sity and type 2 dia­betes rates? Should CPSI be focusing its efforts else­where, or does every harmful ele­ment we’re exposed to deserve to be recognized?

Related Content

About the Writer

Angela Herring is the science writer for the Northeastern news team. In a past life, she made fullerenes (aka bucky balls) at a small chemical company outside of Boston while freelance writing for the Harvard Stem Cell Institute, the Broad Institute and Novartis Biomedical Research Institutes. She earned her Bachelor's degree in chemistry and literature from Bennington College in 2005. In addition to writing stories for the News@Northeastern, she also maintains the university's research blog: iNSolution.

News@Northeastern is Northeastern University’s primary source of news and information. Whether it happens in the classroom, in a laboratory, or on another continent, we bring you timely stories about every aspect of life, learning and discovery at Northeastern. Contact the news team